vintage port 2004?

[xxxMonique Heinemans]

Is there a possibility there is going to be a "split declaration" in VP 2003-2004?

[Roy Hersh]

An excellent question Monique.

A very wet winter in 2003 led to one of the dryest stretches in recent memory from January through April. The spring weather was normal and the growing season progressed. In July, the temperatures spiked and stayed very high for a prolonged period which is earlier than usual for such extreme temperatures, which are more typical in August. Fortunately, there was a good amount of rain for a few days early in the month of August which helped nourish the vines, and a few weeks later there was even more rain making this the rainiest August on record since 1900. There was a lot of cloudy and surprisingly cool temps early on in September and then the rains returned, making the harvest a crap shoot and picking decisions an even bigger gamble. Those who chose to wait (not picking under ripe grapes) were rewarded by sun and rising temperatures with clear skies during the few weeks of picking. It did rain again just after the first week of October, so those that were finished harvesting by then were quite fortunate. Those that picked early had to deal with diluted grapes and clusters that were effected by rot. Ultimately, the harvest yielded even skimpier tonnage than in 2003. But the fruit that was picked was offering excellent levels of acidity and natural sugar.

There will be some very compelling wines made in 2004 and if 2003 was not already generally declared, 2004 would be a "no-brainer" in terms of a declaration. Nobody is willing to go "on the record" this early in the game. Off the record comments have touted the fantastic concentration levels that were achieved with the '04 fruit, while mentioning difficulties with slower than usual fermentations. The picture will be clearer later this year.

My opinion is that there will be a "split-declaration" because the 2004 will prove to be good enough on its own merits. The attention of a split declaration and all of the buzz and controversy, will probably be a good thing for the Port industry as a whole. I am excited to see this happen as it has been awhile since a split has taken place.

[Ronald Wortel]

Roy, in previous split vintages, the leading shippers always declared one of the two and used the other for single quinta or second label vintages (there are of course exceptions, like Niepoort, who has declared two years in a row a couple of times.) Do you think that Taylor/Fonseca and the Symingtons will make a full declaration two years in a row? Or will we have some very good value with 2004 Guimaraens, Vargellas etc.?

[Roy Hersh]

It is not "split vintages" but split declarations, meaning back-to-back declared vintages. I am sure that is what you meant, but I want to be crystal clear in this.

Quinta do Vesuvio has declared every vintage except 1993 since their debut in 1989. Ferreira, Quinta do Portal, Niepoort, Martinez and others declared both the 1994 and 1995 ... but the big houses have their 2nd labels or Single Quinta Vintage Ports to roll out in these cases. I would be shocked to see (for example) Taylor, Noval or Graham's to break tradition and declare two years in a row.

In December of 2004, I had Robert Bower of Taylor here and we discussed the possibility of a split. He said, "I don't see why not if we have enough of the '04 juice and it proves to be good enough." But, I still think he was hinting at the likes of a Taylor's Quinta de Vargellas, one of the top SQVPs, and/or Fonseca-Guimaraens which is a 2nd label VP. I am positive that all the SQVPs that have the quantity and quality of fermented grape to do so, will declare. They have nothing to lose!

[Frederick Blais]

I would be shocked to see (for example) Taylor, Noval or Graham's to break tradition and declare two years in a row.

Actually Noval did it in 1994-1995 and maybe 82-83 but I'm not sure for this one.

On my side, I would not be shock to see a Taylor 2003 and 2004. Taylor did not declare the 1991 because the quality of the harvest was not good enough to bear the Taylor brand on the bottle. If they follow what they say and only an harvest of great quality should be bottle under Taylor without relation of any previous declaration; well, if the 2004 meet the quality, I'll be glad to buy it because it's a proof that it's a great wine!

[Jay Woodruff]

Since it seems that the raw materials will be good enough for many to delare, I will be happy either way.


One question, what will be the difference in the final wines depending upon whether a major house declares or uses their second label?


The SQVPs are sometimes referred to as "the backbone" on the VPs when a house declares. If the house, such as Grahams, does not delcare, what is left out when the Malvedos is sold? Other properties' contributions??

[Ronald Wortel]

It is not "split vintages" but split declarations

I was merely using the same term as James Suckling (Vintage Port) and Richard Mayson (Port and the Douro).

All the major shippers have declared 2003 as a vintage year. That means that a split vintage is out of the question. On previous occasions there were always some houses that declared one year and others that declared the next. If SQVP's will be made in 2004, it is not a split vintage, but usual practice. If a full vintage is declared, it will be a unique event, but technically still not a split vintage, more something like a "double vintage". I doubt if it will happen though.

Apart from the major shippers and their declarations, there is a new movement, with Quinta's making a vintage port in (almost) every year. Vesuvio is an example of that, but also Vale Meão, Vale d. Maria, Crasto, de la Rosa etc.

The SQVPs are sometimes referred to as "the backbone" on the VPs when a house declares. If the house, such as Grahams, does not delcare, what is left out when the Malvedos is sold? Other properties' contributions??

Exactly! :)

[Roy Hersh]

Graham's Malvedos is not a SQVP regardless of what is in the final VP cuvee that they might release.

In 2004, I would think that Ferreira, Q do Infantado, Q de la Rosa, Niepoort, and others will declare a 2004. What counts as a split declaration is certainly a matter for discussion but I can't see any of the above not being considered important enough that they should not be considered, should a split come to fruition.

[Steven Kooij]

Not trying to put you on the spot Roy, but this from the Graham's website:

In 'declared' Vintage years the wines of Malvedos form the fundamental part of the blend which makes up Graham's Vintage Ports. In many other years when there is not enough top quality wine for Graham's to declare a Vintage, the wine of Malvedos is nevertheless so fine that it is bottled on its own, unblended, when two years old and left to mature in bottle like other Vintage Ports.

And from Oldenburg's "Port":

All wines sold under the Malvedos label have been sourced only from the quinta since the middle 1980'ies, and the family have no plans to change the successful Malvedos name to Quinta dos Malvedos on the label.

[Frederick Blais]

I also thought that Malvedos was a blend and not a single quinta just as the Guimaraens Port when the Fonseca was not release.

But with the quote you have I took my book from Richard Mayson and here is what is said:

"Altough Malvedos name has been used purely as a brand in the past, a vintage port from the quinta is now bottled in good, undeclared years under the Malvedos label"